In their decision making, groups become more like the majority of the group and become more extreme in their decisions. Groups actually tend to diminish diversity, rather than expand on the variance within a group. This is particularly relevant at work where we tend to work with people within a single or narrow occupational group and where group acceptance is a strong driver.

Over the holiday season I read an interesting article on the subject in the Harvard Business Review and went to a study by the authors.

Groups Become More Polarised

In this study the researchers studied the opinions of groups on three polarising social issues. They wanted to know what would happen as groups made decisions on three social issues: global warming, affirmative action and civil unions for same-sex couples.

The researchers chose two cities in Colorado, USA. One city, Boulder, was chosen because it is known to be predominantly liberal. The second city, Colorado Springs, was chosen because it is known to be predominantly conservative. Participants were first asked to rate their own opinion on the three subjects and then in groups of between five and seven people to discuss the topics to try to come to a consensus.

What happened through the dynamic of group discussion? The key result was that groups became more extreme in their decisions. The liberals of Boulder became more liberal in their opinions through the process of group decision making and the conservatives of Colorado Springs became more conservative as a group.

For example, the question on global warming was, “The United States should sign an international agreement to reduce the greenhouse gases produced in this country that contribute to global warming”. On a 10-point scale (from 1 = Disagree Very Strongly to 10 = Agree Very Strongly) before the group discussion the conservatives of Colorado Springs scored an average of 5.13. But after the group discussion they shifted to a significantly more conservative score of 2.97.

Reasons for Group Think

The researchers list four possible reasons to explain group polarisation.

Social influences: We are sensitive about being accepted by a group and being perceived favourably. As we hear the opinions of others in the group, people tend to adjust their position slightly in the direction of the dominant position.

Shared identity: Social influence is heightened when people have a sense of identity within their group. In-group norms become more polarised versus the views of people outside of the group.

Selective arguments: In most groups there will be some initial inclinations on a topic. So a dynamic occurs where people start hearing other people’s views and invariably individuals hear more views of the majority opinion. Opinions become skewed in that direction.

Individual confidence: If people lack confidence they tend toward the middle. In a group, as people hear more views similar to their own they gain confidence that that view is correct and hence the group is more convinced they are right and thus become more extreme.

(Source: Sunstein, C, Schkade, D and Hastie, R, “What Happened on Deliberation Day” at University of Chicago Law School. See also Sunstein, C and Hastie, R, “Making Dumb Groups Smarter” in Harvard Business Review December 2014)

Tips for Leaders

Once we know that groups suffer group think and the reasons for this phenomenon then leaders can take steps to reduce the risk, and to make better decisions.

1. Leader holds back: For a group to have the benefit of the range of views amongst its members, it is usually best for a leader to hold back in the sharing of their opinion. If a leader is too quick or too definite in the sharing of their opinion then others will be less inclined to share and the group opinion will shift in the direction of the leader’s opinion. A leader should listen more than talk, at least in the early stages of exploration of issues.

2. Monitor social signals: A leader should watch the signals of group inclusion or exclusion of the team members. Are people signalling support for other people or are they rolling their eyes in disapproval as one of the team speaks? The leader should ensure that individuals are supported in their views, especially if those views differ from the majority of the group.

3. Approval-seeking signals: Likewise a leader should watch for team members appearing to seek other’s approval and not sharing what they really think. Watch for people holding back, or using hesitant language, or glancing to check other’s facial expressions.

4. Acknowledge roles: In decision-making and planning sessions it pays to start with acknowledging each person’s role. Have people state their expertise and experiences that they bring into the room. This gives people a licence and an expectation that they will share that expertise during discussions. This is especially important if one person’s view is different to the majority view – it will help reduce group think.

5. Period for contrary opinions: As the leader, be sensitive to ensure that the range of opinions is being canvassed – that the group is benefiting from the diversity of views and that the group is not just in violent agreement. Alfred P Sloan was the head of General Motors Corporation in the 1920s-40s. He is credited as saying, after a meeting of senior executives and obviously concerned about group think, “If we are all in agreement on the decision, then I propose we postpone further discussion on this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.”

Andrew O’Keeffe

Andrew O’Keeffe is the Principal of Hardwired Humans which assists business leaders design and implement people strategies based on human instincts.

]]>http://nationallearning.com.au/group-think-is-alive-and-well/feed/0TED Talk Researcher Reveals the Top Secrets of the Best Public Speakershttp://nationallearning.com.au/ted-talk-researcher-reveals-the-top-secrets-of-the-best-public-speakers/
http://nationallearning.com.au/ted-talk-researcher-reveals-the-top-secrets-of-the-best-public-speakers/#commentsFri, 20 Mar 2015 02:38:26 +0000http://nationallearning.com.au/?p=3417

The problem with the feedback sandwich is that humans have an instinctive need to classify. We classify in order to make sense and our classifications are binary in nature – on a variation of ‘good’ or ‘bad’. So at moments of receiving feedback the listener is compelled to classify; is the feedback positive or negative? The feedback sandwich becomes a mixed message because it confuses the classification instinct.

There are four problems with the feedback sandwich for humans.

We’ll analyse the four problems through a scenario where the manager has observed dysfunctional behaviour by a new team member, Sam, in now the second team meeting since Sam joined the team. Sam is late for meetings, is frequently checking her phone and often interrupts her colleagues. The manager has decided to talk with Sam.

Problem 1 – Misclassified

If the manager starts the conversation in feedback sandwich mode they will probably say, ‘Sam, you’ve been with us for three months now. The technical skills you’ve brought to the team are greatly appreciated.’

In her normal human way Sam has to classify what this is about. Sam might indeed classify what she is being told is ‘good’, perhaps saying to herself, ‘Wow, I have never had a manager who takes the time so early in employment to give me positive feedback.’ But when the manager gets to the point then Sam realises she has misclassified. At a minimum, Sam feels annoyed that she got it wrong. She feels mislead.

Problem 2 – Smelling the “BUT” Coming

The second possibility with the sandwich is that Sam smells the ‘but’ coming right from the start. At the classifying moment Sam detects awkwardness about the manager – that the manager’s throat is a little constricted and facial expression slightly stressed. Sam’s radar is telling her that this is not good. And then when the “But” comes her suspicions are confirmed.

Problem 3 – Assumes the Worst

A further problem with the uncertainty in Sam’s mind in trying to classify is that the uncertainty can cause Sam assuming the worst. There might be a flash of fear through Sam’s mind that she is about to be fired. There is a powerful and memorable emotional reaction by Sam which can’t help but be associated with the manager.

Problem 4 - Manager’s Style Now Classified

A fourth problem with the feedback sandwich is that the manager has reduced his ability to give positive feedback in the future. For Sam, she has classified that whenever the manager starts with a positive he is heading towards a negative.

A Better Approach

Regular readers of my articles and participants on our programs will know that almost everything rests on the first seven words … the two seconds we have before the listener classifies. The manager needs to get to the point quickly to enable Sam to classify correctly.

In this scenario, an ideal opening by the manager would be, ‘We need to cover our team’s protocols’. Sam can immediately accurately classify the subject. She knows she is being held to account, knows the degree of seriousness (not drastic) and that she doesn’t have to assume the worst.

Having facilitated Sam’s accurate classification, the manager can now raise the behaviours he has observed and of course ask for Sam’s perspective and explanation. The manager can then go to the principles, such as, ‘It’s something that I should have covered when you first joined us. Team meetings and respect for each other are very important to me. So it’s a good opportunity to cover that now.’

In the recently released trove of Einstein documents, there’s a short article in which he spells out his disdain for finals, calling them a “nightmare.” Here’s how Einstein’s thoughts pertain to the world of entrepreneurship, which is filled with comparably tedious annual rites (performance reviews, customer surveys, etc.).

In the recently released trove of Einstein documents, there’s a short article in which he spells out his disdain for finals, calling them a “nightmare.” Here’s how Einstein’s thoughts pertain to the world of entrepreneurship, which is filled with comparably tedious annual rites (performance reviews, customer surveys, etc.).

]]>http://nationallearning.com.au/what-is-your-personal-impact-factor/feed/0I’m Interested in You as a Person – How Our Mindset Affects the Way We Managehttp://nationallearning.com.au/im-interested-in-you-as-a-person-how-our-mindset-affects-the-way-we-manage/
http://nationallearning.com.au/im-interested-in-you-as-a-person-how-our-mindset-affects-the-way-we-manage/#commentsThu, 06 Nov 2014 23:30:29 +0000http://nationallearning.com.au/?p=3375

One study took the placebo effect a step further and demonstrated how mindset toward physical exercise affects a person’s health. Ellen Langer of Harvard is well-known for her work on mindset, health and aging. I once heard her speak at a conference and one of her studies is particularly thought-provoking – the so-called ‘chambermaid’ study.

Langer and her colleague investigated the connection between perceived exercise of hotel housekeeping staff and their health. They found that chambermaids who came to believe that their work involved exercise became heathier compared to chambermaids who had no such mindset change – even though actual exercise for the informed group did not change.

The researchers chose to study housekeeping because the role involves significant exercise – cleaning rooms, making beds, walking, lifting and bending. People in these roles might not realise the amount of exercise they were getting and they would then probably not be getting the health benefits of their job. The researchers hypothesised that if their mindset shifted so they became aware of the exercise they are getting then health improvements would likely follow.

Seven hotels were chosen with four hotels assigned to the ‘informed group’ and three to the ‘control group’. During an early stage of the process chambermaids in the informed group were given information about how their work is good exercise. The control group was given no such information.

At the beginning of the four-week study measures were taken of weight and percent of body fat, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio and blood pressure. Four weeks later the researchers returned and recorded the same measures.

Results

The results were significant in both perceived exercise and the impacts on health. For the informed group the number of people who reported exercising regularly doubled and the average amount of exercise increased by 20% (both were perceived exercise as there was no change in actual exercise outside of work and no change in workload at work).

This shift in mindset “was accompanied by remarkable improvement in physiological measures associated with exercise”. After just four weeks of knowing their work was good exercise the informed group lost an average of 2 pounds (1 kg), lowered their systolic blood pressure by 10 points and were significantly healthier on the measures of body-fat, body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio.

For the control group there was no change in perceived exercise or in health measures.

Just a shift in mindset was enough – the realisation of exercise improved health outcomes even though actual exercise did not change.

This study provokes possibilities of wider implications of mindset. I know in organisational roles over my career that at the times when I worked for a boss who showed belief in me and my work my energy and output increased significantly. Mindset does matter.

You might self-assess the mindset you establish and project on to your people as part of how you lead:

Mindset: I’m interested in you as a person (so they are respecting of self and colleagues)

Mindset: I establish a safe place for people to work (so they can do their best work)

Mindset: It’s okay that we learn from mistakes (so people try things)

Mindset: I have confidence in them and their work (so they have self-belief)

Mindset: Change opens opportunities for growth (so they are okay with change)

Mindset: Our work has a big impact (so they take pride from their work).

Andrew O’Keeffe

Andrew O’Keeffe is the Principal of Hardwired Humans which assists business leaders design and implement people strategies based on human instincts.